About Me

Name: Matthew
Location: Woodstock, GA
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

irrefutable logic doesn't win hearts

America's "greatest generation" were those who knew what had to be done and did it, regardless of the personal cost or how they felt about it. And ever since, we've become increasingly 'self-aware' and more attuned to our hearts than our minds.

That, in my estimation, is why this election year has many of us on the conservative end of things trying to decide whether to put a clothespin on our nose and pull the lever this November, or sit it out and pray we survive the next term.

The voters just coming of age have been taught that self-esteem is paramount, and that personal sacrifice is pointless. They want their fifteen nanoseconds of fame, and the perceived adoration and blessings that will come with it, rather than a lifetime of doing the right thing no matter how difficult.

Logic doesn't work anymore. That's why so many of the liberati say that conservativism is a dying system.

Progressivism doesn't try to use logic. It uses feelings, and feeling-emoting terms and phrases, to lull its adherents into a zombie-like state of emotional bi-polarism. 'Bush lied' is a mantra (please, pay no attention to the preponderance of evidence, backed by the Democratic Kommittee on Unfeeling Activities own conclusions that the WORLD thought Sadam had WMDs); 'change' is another. TownHall carried an article yesterday by Sandy Rios that talked about the new-agey adoration that is being heaped on The Obamessiah.

People who cling to traditional faith are considered mindless, while the believers in the new religion are the intelligent ones.

The new religion is a faith in a man, a politician from the Chicago machine. He will stop the rising waters. He will heal the world. He will "usher in a new way of being"...

This is the upside-down world in which we live.

McCain isn't exciting. I've been thinking of playing a few of his speeches at bedtime to help with my insomnia. He also is not a conservative, but I've commented elsewhere that I'd rather agree with the Pres. 25% of the time then 2% of the time.

Conservativism and short attention spans are not a good match, and the country suffers collectively from ADHD.

The message of conservativism is not emotionally satisfying. It offers no easy solutions, and it only offers a hope of a reward if you work really, really hard.

The lottery does sound much more appealing.

I'm not sure what can be done to convert the followers of the new religion. I'm not sure what it would take to convince people that working hard and getting a solid education to improve the odds of a better job and a better life is more enticing than watching subsidized cable on my government-provided couch, watching that uplifting stuff called "Reality TV." I don't know how to get people to recognize that having a stable family life is so much more satisfying than having the newest cell phone, the biggest house, the coolest ride.

We may have to wait through a swing of the pendulum.

Maybe if we're lucky, their shaky modern savior will miss a few of the rocks he uses to appear to walk on the water.

Maybe the short attention spans will move on to something else before the election.

Is there a new season of American Idol starting before the elections?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

We, the people of the United States...

Habeus corpus applies to enemy combatants. So sayeth the Supreme Court today. Habeus corpus means literally 'we command that you have the body'. The idea is that prisoners must be told why they are being held.

On the surface, that sounds pretty simple. "Well, why not just tell them why they're being held?"

The New York Times ran an article a few years back explaining how the government was plucking tidbits of intelligence from the Taliban by monitoring a set of web addresses. The day the story broke, the chatter stopped.

If telling the person why they are being held would compromise either human resources or other means of gathering intelligence, it would severely handicap the good guys (that's us, in case you forgot) in using those resources again. Agents aren't very useful if they're dead.

"But habeus is a Constitutional right." Yes, it is. One with very specific direction as to how it may be suspended. Article One, section 9 of the Constitution says that habeus may be suspended " when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."

I suspect the plaintiffs in this matter were arguing that this is not a case of rebellion or invasion. If that was their argument, there is logic to the claim. But the ultimate goals of al queda and their ilk is the destruction of America and Israel. That would seem to satisfy the public safety portion of the exemption.

The Constitution is the original Contract with America. It was not a contract with the world. Today's ruling calls this into question, and I fear will prove disastrous.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's Labor Pains

Chicago is a city where you can't change your baby's nightlight without a team from the Electrical Contractors' Union on hand. God forbid you should ever try to move a box in your office - there must be at least three members of the Office Box Moving Union there - two to take turns lifting and moving the box, and one to drink the coffee.

Obama has maintained a cozy relationship with labor. He has been quite clear in his support of the Employee Free Choice Act, which would remove the secret ballot from votes on unionization. Besides the fact that we all kinda like the idea of secret ballots, this act would prevent employees from saying they would support a vote for unionization just to get the union people off their back, then vote against in privacy. The 'big deal' here is that unions (might want to sit down for this) have a reputation for using intimidation. As in, 'vote for unionization or you never know what might happen out there on the line.'

Obama's view on this act?
“We will pass the Employee Free Choice Act. It’s not a matter of 'if'; it’s a matter of 'when.' We may have to wait for the next president to sign it, but we will get this thing done.”
So why is he suddenly getting a thumbs-down from labor? Because one of his top economic advisors, Jason Furman, is a known associate of Robert Rubin, one-time Clinton Treasury Secretary.

Wow. People to the right side of Obama are criticized for pointing out Obama's direct relationships with people of questionable character ... but now the union folk are complaining that one of his advisors might have learned too much about economics from the Treasury Sec of Bill Clinton. I'm sorry, but wasn't the Clinton team supposed to be responsible for a sustained economic expansion? Seems like I have heard that multiple times when I've knocked heads with Progressives on economic issues. Frequently.

So the unions don't want someone involved in Obama's potential administration who is an associate of someone who was closely tied to big business. I once ran a business - into the ground. I wonder if the unions would consider me more qualified or less qualified as an economic advisor as a result.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Chicago! Chicago!

For those who may be entering the arena of politics for the first time this season ... oh, wait, most of them probably aren't reading over here.

Ah, well. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to elect really bad presidents, so let's take a look at the history of Chicago politics.

Wikipedia does a sanitized summary, missing all the details that make it interesting. But I found this article from US News and World Report to be particularly instructive. In short, the rough and tumble of Chicago politics has honed the presumptive Democratic nominee. He isn't naive, and he is certainly not anything new as politicians go. He is as cold and calculating as they come, and he has a knack for recognizing just where to turn to ride the tides of the electorate.

Scary stuff for those of us who don't care for the prospect of him as the leader of the free world.

But there is a chink in his armor that has been emerging more of late. The video of him trying to defend Johnson, now a former member of his triumverate of veep-vetters, shows a man who is not very sharp when an unscripted moment comes along. And even some among the MSM are beginning to recognize that the avoidance of unexpected questions is not borne out of some mysterious self-assurance. The fact is, he can't put together a coherent sentence if it hasn't been rehearsed.

Thank goodness there appears to be no shortage of opportunities for Barack to speak unscripted. Which brings us back to Chicago.

The reason I have some confidence in the Democandidate's ability to lose the election is that he learned his politics in a city where one could reasonably assume that everyone else in politics was dirty; so he doesn't really look that closely at the people around him. I feel relatively certain that there will be an endless parade of embarassing associations between now and November.

His most devout followers want to think this is all a Republican smokescreen ... but the smoke is not from Republican fires. The fires are the natural consequence of selecting someone from the dirtiest city in US politics.

Burn, baby, burn.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous123Next »